The Deadlift

So this has become a topic of some discussion recently, given Gordon and Rob's strict adherence to the Mark Rippetoe "school" of lifting and the general popularity of "Starting Strength" among a good number of us.

My goal is get a good discussion going, regardless of experience level and I would encourage anyone and everyone who has an opinion to post it.

But I digress, there are two areas of the Deadlift that I think would be interesting to delve into:

The first pertains the lifting with a heel.
Here are the two interviews that Rippetoe gave to Myles Kantor about a year ago explaining his logic for advocating lifting shoes in the DL.

http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/interviews/going-deeper-into-the-deadlift-with-mark-rippetoe-part-1/

http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/interviews/going-deeper-into-the-deadlift-with-mark-rippetoe-part-2/

Also...Rippetoe's original analysis of deadlifting:

http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/51-2006_AnalysisofDeadlift.pdf


The second pertains to hip placement. By this I mean keeping your hips high vs. low. I don't know that there is a right answer to this question given how different body proportions can be, but I think there are distinct advantages and disadvantages for each one and I hope discussing this will highlight some of these as some of us may not have thought about this in much detail.

I'll kick this off by looking at point #1:

My basic understanding of Rippetoe's overriding point throughout all 3 articles is merely that the mid foot, bar and scapulas must all be lined up at the initiation of the lift. I'm not sure why he has to make extreme and absolute statements like "it is better to lift with a heel" and "the bar MUST touch your shins" when these statements are secondary, and honestly, quite subjective, as compared to his fundamental point.

Now, his reasoning for these statements is sound. If the goal at the initiation of the deadlift is to use the posterior chain to keep the lower back in flexion at a constant angle and use the force of the quadriceps to drive the entire torso and bar upward, then it makes sense to want to maximize the amount of quad drive that one can generate (of course while keeping the lower back in flexion and the hip angle constant). Logically, using an elevated heel in this instance WOULD increase the amount of quad drive one can generate. However, at what cost?

This is where body proportion comes into play, I feel that Rippetoe fails to account for the fact that differing proportions can affect the feasibility of these secondary pointers. I could definitely see a circumstance where someone with short femurs would benefit from deadlifting in a heel, but by and large I feel that for the average person or someone with longer femurs and tighter hips (like myself) a heel would adversely affect the ability to hold the lower back in flexion via posterior chain, as the hip angle would be decreased. This would also force the knees forward which in general increases the amount of motion required to get the lift to lockout. Basically in a heel the deadlift becomes more like a deep(er) squat. I think there is an explicit passage in 5-3-1 (and I'm sure many others have the argument before as well) that we can all quarter squat more than we can full squat. Obviously this is taking the argument to the extreme, but it illustrates the point.

Finally...not everyone's feet aligns their shins with their midfoot. So even if you take Rippetoe's assertion at face value, it's not consistent because, again, he fails to account for differing body proportions.

Alright, that's my take. Let's have at it.

JC(05/31)- Starting Strength

Previous workout (5/27)-
Squat-
Built up to 235- 1x5
Left shin was flaring up again, so I kept it to one set.

Deadlift-
255- 1x5

Military Press-
105- 3x5

Ab roller-3x5

Today (5/31)-
Squat-
245- 3x5
Left shin started acting up again (really tight feeling, as if I can't fully bend my knees), but pushed through it.

Bench Press-
195- 3x5
Easy peasy.

Pull ups- 3x6

Ab roller- 3x5

Getting strength back, little by little.